Are Mega-Adventures / APs Bad?

[Retreater]

I'm currently taking a break from D&D and running a GURPS space campaign. I'm just one session into the GURPS campaign, but I'm already seeing what a massive amount of work it's going to be, and already I'm longing for the relative simplicity of D&D 3.5.

In hindsight, I think what had soured my group's experience with D&D was my running BIG adventures and Adventure Paths, with disasterous results. It seemed that all of the modules were written such that by the time you reach Chapter X you should be Y level; if you're not, everyone in the group will die.

I had this experience with the Shackled City AP and Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave. It seemed that our best gaming memories in 3.x came from the short 32 pagers that WotC released early on (like Sunken Citadel, Forge of Fury, etc.), Dungeon Magazine adventures, and the little AEG pamphlets.

Has anyone else run into trouble trying to run BIG adventures?

Retreater

 

[Piratecat]

For me, the only way to run big adventures is to intersperse them with smaller side adventures to change up the mood and give everyone a break. I'm also a firm believer that no adventure should be run "as is" without taking the eccentricities of a given party into account. As you said, multiple TPKs aren't fun for me.

I think they're great, though, for showcasing how to run a campaign-long plot that takes a group from start to finish. People needed to see examples of that.

 

[Crothian]

Without knowing any of your specifics I think one of the DM's responsibilities is to make sure the PCs are the level they need to be. I'm running Shackled City right now and we are in chapter three. I've also run 4 separate modules that are not part of the adventure path to make sure the PCs are where they need to be.

There is an art to running an adventure path just like there is an art to running small unconnected modules. The game can play differently depending on what people do and their style. The important thing is that you find what works for your group.

 

[Retreater]

I found that there was only so much that could be done. After Chapter A, the players would be ready to charge into the big scary plot of Chapter B (or worse, to Chapter C). I tried to add sidequests and smaller adventures during my running of Shackled City, and it turned out that we were spending more time playing them than the actual Adventure Path.

Sometimes, when DMing, I would look at the challenges ahead in a mega-adventure and say, there is no way the group can beat this. Maybe in 2 or 3 levels they can. But what do you do until then? Does a good DM weaken the encounter (and thus everything that follows, because the encounters in APs never stay static or get easier)? Or should the DM handwave a few extra levels of experience onto his PCs?

I perceive that this game has changed a lot, even since 3.0 came out. I've been DMing for 15 years and still can't figure out how to give my players the edge they need over the apparent power creep in the game ... but I guess that's for another thread.

Retreater

 

[Doug McCrae]

Does a good DM weaken the encounter (and thus everything that follows, because the encounters in APs never stay static or get easier)? Or should the DM handwave a few extra levels of experience onto his PCs?

Both approaches seem reasonable. Imo there are no hard and fast rules for what a 'good' DM does, after all it depends on your group's preferred style. Handwaving means much less work for you though, which is a bonus. You could say the PCs have an adventure that isn't detailed. Another option would be to just come out and say "OK the party isn't high enough level for the next section of the AP, how about I run a side quest so you get more XP?"

 

[diaglo]

For me, the only way to run big adventures is to intersperse them with smaller side adventures to change up the mood and give everyone a break. I'm also a firm believer that no adventure should be run "as is" without taking the eccentricities of a given party into account. As you said, multiple TPKs aren't fun for me.

I think they're great, though, for showcasing how to run a campaign-long plot that takes a group from start to finish. People needed to see examples of that.

i'll second what Pkitty is saying.

T1-4 fails in so many ways if played in the sense that many other modules were at the time.

even G1 , 2, 3, D1, 2, 3, Q1 is meant to be broken up somewhat to give you a break.

that's how campaigns went. between sessions many times you leveled, bought or made items, ran ideas by the referee for other plots to run, or even ran side adventures with 1 or 2 PCs only. it also gave the group a chance to try other things.

megamodules in that regard aren't meant to flow right into each other. esp with time constraints. the kind with... the end of the world will be in 100 days unless the PCs stop the BBEG. b/c ... um... most of the time it ain't even the same PCs ending the module/adventure.

 

[Arkhandus]

Only if your group doesn't like big quests or the like, or if you just never do a little side-trek to take a break from it and get the group to do something a little different for a while before returning to the main quest.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Or should the DM handwave a few extra levels of experience onto his PCs?

When we played Shackled City, this is what our DM did. We didn't really like it. We are there to play. So what if we spend a few weeks doing something unrelated, it adds verisimilitude. Give the guys a break. Maybe they go visit a relative who's in trouble and "whackiness" ensues. Maybe they go and handle the relative's trouble no problem, but it is the trip home which goes awry.

Hope that helps.
Thaumaturge.

 

[Hjorimir]

I used to be big on the AP approach (before they were even coined Adventure Paths). I kept trying to ram a big, epic agenda down on the players. Sure, it worked to a certain extent, but players can be easily fatigued with a single objective.

I'm really in the mindset of smaller adventrues that stand on their own with some overarching plots lingering around in the background to bring things together when appropriate.

 

[Morrus]

Are Mega-Adventures / APs Bad?

No.

I've experienced the "level-matching" problem you describe; the way I dealt with it was to compensate on the fly. If they're under-level, up the encounters a little (without killing them!) to give them more XP; or add some in. If you make a habit of eyeballing session-to-session, it's pretty easy and trivial.

If they're over-level - make the encounters harder to match them (I'd be amazed if the AP in question didn't describe how to do that), or miss a few out.

I've never found it to be a real problem. Hell, I adjust encounters on the fly to match the party (don't tell my players!), let alone adventures!

Your "mission2 (should you choose to accept it...) is simple: make each session challenging and fun. If your players find each session challening and fun, who cares what you did in secret to achieve it? They were challenged. They had fun. Mission accomplished.

Meet up with your friends next week and have more fun.